Latest House Republican Horror as reported by MICHAEL JANOFSKY in the New York Times

Deep in the energy bill that was approved by a House committee this week, under a section titled "Miscellaneous," is a brief provision that could have major consequences for communities struggling to clean up their dirty air.

If it becomes law, it would make one of the most significant changes to the Clean Air Act in 15 years, allowing communities whose air pollution comes from hundreds of miles away to delay meeting national air quality standards until their offending neighbors clean up their own air.

This is the usual effort to make a huge change favorable to industry and to try to hide it. The author Representative Joe L. Barton, is not an expert at the game. He openly added the provision as an amendment in the committee he chairs. It passed by a party line vote. No Joe, that's not how it's done. You are supposed to add such provisions in the conference committee (members chosen by the leadership) then give members one day to read 1000 pages and find the key sentence in the part of the conference report that is so boring that no one can force himself to read it.

Because Barton is not as sneaky as he might be, the issue is out in the open on thefront page of www.nytimes.com. Opponents have managed to communicate to NYTimes readers why this is a terrible provision "They say Mr. Barton's provision could delay improvements by 10 years as one area waits for another, which waits for another - a prospect that Mr. Barton disputed."

Now a key reason Barton looks bad is that Janofsky knows how to make an argument then express it in pure "he says/she says" form. This is sortof like writing a play in verse. If you are good, you can move the plot along while following the Rhymn scheme and meter. Maybe Janofsky is a genius. Actually, in this case, genius is not required because Barton's provision is so indefensible that a spokesman for the Bush EPA attacked it .

John Millett, an E.P.A. spokesman, said the agency had taken no position on Mr. Barton's provision, but a high-ranking agency official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for the agency, said "a real debate" was under way among agency officials about its potential effectiveness and its effect on the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Millett said: "Some people think it's a good idea. Most don't."

Now I can't help noting that the anonymous official seems to have coordinated so closely with Mr Millet that it is hard to believe that they are different people. I fear Mr Millett was careless about what to insist was off the record.

Bryan Brendle is being careless too "'We're clearly in support of any kind of flexibility,' said Bryan Brendle, an official with the manufacturers organization."
Anyone with a brain can translate that to "this bill is good for pollution which is good for our profits". Bryan, you are supposed to explain why this "flexibility" (read filthy air) is special so that this particular kind of "flexibility" is a good idea even if regulation of pollution is a good idea in general. I mean we all know that you support any kind of flexibility, but you are not supposed to say so. I would guess that Mr Brendle presented many arguments for this particular provision to MICHAEL JANOFSKY, but Janofsky can choose what to quote. That's why you need message discipline. You know you have to say the thing you want the reporter to quote again and again and not say anything else. It doesn't matter if the thing you say again and again isn't an answer to the reporter's question. I mean like how much is this guy paid ? More than I am I bet and I can do his job in my sleep.

Robert Brendle : "The issue is that it is unfair to punish communities because they are victims of upwind polluters. That's blaming the victim. The Clinton administration didn't do that. Congress has to address the issue because activist judges over ruled the Clinton administration's reasonable interpretation of the Clean air act"
Reporter: But Mr Brendle I asked you the time of day not why this is a good provision ? Why didn't you answer my question
Robert Brendle : "The issue is that it is unfair to punish communities because they are victims of upwind polluters. That's blaming the victim. The Clinton administration didn't do that. Congress has to address the issue because activist judges over ruled the Clinton administration's reasonable interpretation of the Clean air act"
Reporter: are you a human being or a parrot. Is that the only thing you know how to say ?
Robert Brendle : "The issue is that it is unfair to punish communities because they are victims of upwind polluters. That's blaming the victim. The Clinton administration didn't do that. Congress has to address the issue because activist judges over ruled the Clinton administration's reasonable interpretation of the Clean air act"
Reporter: Does yo mamma wear army boots. If you don't say no, I will assume the answer is yes.
Robert Brendle : "The issue is that it is unfair to punish communities because they are victims of upwind polluters. That's blaming the victim. The Clinton administration didn't do that. Congress has to address the issue because activist judges over ruled the Clinton administration's reasonable interpretation of the Clean air act"

I me how hard is that. Robert Brendle is being paid god knows what to stay on message and not answer reporters' and he must have answered a question.

Here the provision is a major attack on the clean air act. It reminds us that fighting the Republicans who control everything and have no shame is a constant struggle. However it also shows us that some journalists are willing to get the truth across even if they must use the he says/she says format and that at least one is able very very able.

Of course proving that Barton is in the pocket of lobbyists is like shooting fish in a barrel, or, more appropriately, shooting a wily pumpkin.